Here comes Super Hi-Vision (someone better come up with a better name for this):

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/33-megapixel-super-hi-vision-ultra-hdtv-could-be-on-the-air-in/

7,680x4,320 and 22.2 channel surround - the new broadcast standard in Japan for 2015.

Read the article...the compression codec will have to be amazing or the majors, ABC, CBS, and NBC, will be reduced to one channel each, Over The Air Broadcast.

OK, maybe two channels ;-)

More realistically, I would put this under the 'To much, to soon' file.
1. The bandwidth requirements are going to be high.
2. The upgrade costs for production, distribution, and broadcast will be high.
These folks haven't even finished the transition to 1080 HD!
3. The consumer is just getting used to 1080 HD. To obsolete them this fast...
This goes under the upgrade cycles are getting to crazy fast for even the end user to keep up with.

Guys, I saw this at NAB last year and I wasn't impressed. I'm not sure how great the latitude was, it had a VERY videoish feel to it and sorta reminded me of video from the early 90's but at super high resolution. It just didn't feel organic or warm in any way shape or form and left me wondering, "wow, what's the big deal?".
I think what we'll see in the coming years is camera resolution far out stripping typical in-home displays. People can't afford to upgrade to the latest and greatest displays every 2 or 3 years to keep up with shooting resolutions, and what about delivery? How are you going to pipe that much information over existing networks, and where are you going to get the funding to establish new networks that can handle the load?

***EDIT***
And with the increasing pace of the expansion of technology, EVERYTHING is an intermediate solution.

I echo the "too much too soon". Its similar to the Japanese/NHK 1100 line TV in 1969. It took 30 years for technology to make it practical, an then the underlying tech was unrecognizable.

7,680x4,320 and 22.2 channel surround - the new broadcast standard in Japan for 2015.
I see this being targeted not at broadcast as we think of it, but more special purpose "live-IMAX" for want of a better term. I can also see scope for industrial, medical, scientific etc applications. (Flight simulators, maybe?)

For conventional broadcasting, there's a law of diminishing returns, and the physics of the human eye to consider. I don't see a lot of point in going beyond 1080p for standard broadcast.

The gear they were shooting this stuff with was nuts... the surround sound mic system looked like a huge spider with microphone arms.... or maybe more like a retro satellite with all these mics sticking out of it. The camera was huge. It looked like a 1950's studio camera. It was a large metal box with, gosh, I don't know, like 20 or more SDI cables coming off the back of it and running into a small fridge sized box of drives. It's not exactly a portable or pretty system.

All the specs I've given were for illustrative purposes only, don't quote me on the number of connections and such.

I saw the technology demos from NHK at the previous two NABs.

Imagine looking at your computer monitor with a detailed image of Google Earth. Now step back. It covers the entire (very large) wall with no loss of detail at any point.

The feeling I got was one of sensory overload. Everywhere you look there is detail. It's like playing "Where's Waldo?"

There is a reason why filmmakers like the shallow DOF of 35mm film for the big screen. You can focus the attention on one face or one object. The rest of the scene blurs into the subconscious.

NHK has made a great technical achievement. Now the artists and audience need to figure out how to best use it.

http://www.engadget.com/media/2008/01/uhdvcomparison060107.jpg
Wow that's a lot of pixels

I think manufacturers should concentrate more on dynamic range/latitude, lower light, and maybe 3D before upping the resolution more.

This is a ways off. I saw HD analog 1080i in a Sony booth at NAB in 1986.
Didn't shoot HD until 2003, 17 years later. Manufacturers are always showing proof of concepts. Doesn't mean that it is coming out next year or even in 5 years. So 4k is still the next step. You might see 8K, 7.5k or whatever 10 or 15 years from now. You might see it when we land on the moon again around 2018 or 2020.

Cheers.

Just for the record, I have been in technology for 20+ years. EVERYTHING is an interim solution. That is all. ;)

EVERYTHING is an interim solution. That is all. ;)

Yep, that was just a joke. I remembered reading a post from Jim Jannard where he said 1080 was just an interim resolution on the path to 4k - that was the first thing that popped in my head when I saw the article.

http://lousyhero.com/blaze/uhd.jpg

Real example ;)

I'm getting to that point of caring more about camera latitude and features than I am with resolution. For example, does a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot consumer digital camera take a better picture, quality-wise, than a 6.1 mp Nikon D40 or Pentax K100D Super? (Of course, the shooter plays the biggest role.)

Of course not, it's apples and oranges, and resolution isn't always the key. Check out Ken Rockwell's thoughts on resolution (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm)--it can be applied to digital video and cinema.

heath

I completely agree with you Heath. But most consumers only know how to compare megapixles and have no idea about dynamic range....If they did, I think Fuji would be a much more popular company for their digital cameras.

The way camera (video and digital photo) companies are pushing megapixels, it reminds me of computer companies promoting a PC's megahertz and gigahertz in the late 1990s.

heath

I'm getting to that point of caring more about camera latitude and features than I am with resolution. For example, does a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot consumer digital camera take a better picture, quality-wise, than a 6.1 mp Nikon D40 or Pentax K100D Super? (Of course, the shooter plays the biggest role.)

Of course not, it's apples and oranges, and resolution isn't always the key. Check out Ken Rockwell's thoughts on resolution (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm)--it can be applied to digital video and cinema.

heath

Very true, but I think it will be a long time before you can get a consumer-level camera shooting 4k... It's like the Sanyo $150 HD cameras...

When cameras were gaining in megapixels, typically the more megapixels it had, the better the camera was, True DSLRs were the ones with 6-8-10mega pixels. Only until recently have consumer cameras with high mega-pixels...

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ7 ($250 point/shoot)... 6 mega-pixels... and Nikon D100 ($2000 DSLR)... 6 mega-pixels... There absolutely no comparison, and there shouldn't be.

UHD is going to be made for cinema, there will be cinema-style cameras for that resolution before it is even considered for consumer cameras.

Well, you can't say the Sanyo compares even to the V1u, though I'll take a pro shooter on the Sanyo than a wannabe with the V1u in full automatic and horrible framing.

I've seen too many times to count.

heath

Just like my panasonic doesn't compare to the Nikon ;)

It shouldn't, they're different markets. People who are in the professional market understand the difference and that's what matters in my opinion.

umm let's see, DVD's are the majority stil. Now bluray will take a few years to catch on with everyone. Most people are learning what 1080P is, a few know of 2k,
Only filmmakers really know about 4k. Then this, i guess they decided to jump 15 years, someone must of stole the "Renders Obsolescene obsolete" slogan

Only filmmakers really know about 4k.

There are plenty of uses for 2k and 4k industrial cameras besides film making, which I doubt is the driving force behind development of 4k systems. There is a market in industrial and medical imaging that is willing to pay far more than a sole indie film maker on whole systems based around 12MP video-imaging systems.

4k is coming, regardless of support from film makers. And then, the next great thing.

To a manufacturer, it's all about demand and ROI. The market exists; the technology cheapens and improves, so sure as heck there'll be more options than just RED soon enough. As it stands, the RED is impressive in how it can deliver high FPS for such a high-resolution sensor. Other manufacturers will catch up and the price will go down, and all the while, higher resolution sensors will be made.

In a few years just think, it won't be uncommon for us Joes to have access to: 12MP sensor capable of 60fps, Gig-E cable to computer or portable box for control, universal/interchangeable lens mount., and high-speed storage. Voila. But why? ;)

That all said, the digital film community sees 4k as an evoluntionary step. Sony is working on all the parts in their theatre cinema 4k line: 4k camera > 4k blu-ray disc > 4k projectors. Replacing film projectors at movie theatres will be 4k.

There are plenty of uses for 2k and 4k industrial cameras besides film making, which I doubt is the driving force behind development of 4k systems. There is a market in industrial and medical imaging that is willing to pay far more than a sole indie film maker on whole systems based around 12MP video-imaging systems.

4k is coming, regardless of support from film makers. And then, the next great thing.

To a manufacturer, it's all about demand and ROI. The market exists; the technology cheapens and improves, so sure as heck there'll be more options than just RED soon enough. As it stands, the RED is impressive in how it can deliver high FPS for such a high-resolution sensor. Other manufacturers will catch up and the price will go down, and all the while, higher resolution sensors will be made.

In a few years just think, it won't be uncommon for us Joes to have access to: 12MP sensor capable of 60fps, Gig-E cable to computer or portable box for control, universal/interchangeable lens mount., and high-speed storage. Voila. But why? ;)

That all said, the digital film community sees 4k as an evoluntionary step. Sony is working on all the parts in their theatre cinema 4k line: 4k camera > 4k blu-ray disc > 4k projectors. Replacing film projectors at movie theatres will be 4k.

good points and agreed. The way technology is going, i can imagine a 4k handycam as a "consumer cam", but it'll take a few more years.

4k projection is gonna hit hard especially with sony and red coming out with 4k systems at NAB, and dont forget the 2k scarlet. Exciting times ahead indeed.

"And with the increasing pace of the expansion of technology, EVERYTHING is an intermediate solution."

lol...I think this is the greatest thing I've read in a while...I'm gonna use it to make me look wise...

:D

Hi there Chris, I see you're in my neck of the woods, welcome to the forum.

4k projection is gonna hit hard especially with sony and red coming out with 4k systems at NAB, and dont forget the 2k scarlet. Exciting times ahead indeed.

Where did you find out the scarlet is going to be 2k?

Where did you find out the scarlet is going to be 2k?

Red registered a Scarlet 2K domain name. It's not proof, but it's a fairly strong lead.

Clever, thanks.

Theres quite a few clever lads using their 1080i footage for sizing down, cropping , rotating and all the other creative things that it allows them to do when they drop a big file into a small project window.
I suppose for the forseeable future thats where the real benefits will come into play for this 2k and 4k etc.footage when dropped into the 1080 projects -
Thats the only real world application that I can see this technology benefitting me with, at any stage in the future.

That kind of pixel size for home distribution is meaningless. You'd have to have a theater sized monitor to appreciate the advantage of enhanced resolution. Even the 1080 HD doesn't give you more appreciable resolution than SD on a small screen (the kind I and many other people have at home).